Having read some of the recent comments on rec.audio.opinion and high end,
concerning "audible" differences between interconnect and loudspeaker
cables, I could not resist adding some thoughts about the subject as a concerned
engineer possessing credible credentials.

To begin, several companies design and manufacture loudspeaker and
interconnect cables which they proudly claim possess optimized electrical
properties for the audiophile applications intended. However, accurate
measurements of several popularly selling cables reveal significant differences
that call into question the technical goals of their designer. These differences
also question the capability of the companies to perform accurate measurements
of important cable performance properties. For example, any company not
possessing a precision C-L-R bridge, a Vector Impedance Meter, a Network
Analyzer, a precision waveform and impulse generator, wideband precision
oscilloscopes, etc., probably needs to purchase them if they are truly serious
about designing audio cables that provide premium performance.

Measurable properties of interconnect cables include all of the above, with
the addition of those properties of the dielectric material that contribute to
"microphonic noise" in the presence of ambient vibration, noise, etc.
(in combination with a "D.C. off-set" created by a pre-amp output
circuit, etc.).

While competent cable manufacturers should be aware of these measurements and
the need to make them during the design of their cables, the raw truth is that
most do not! Proof of this can be found in the absurd buzzard-salve, snake-oil
and meaningless advertising claims found in almost all magazine ads and product
literature for audiophile cables. Perhaps worse, very few of the expensive,
high-tech appearing cables we have measured appear to have been designed in
accordance with the well-known laws and principles taught by proper physics and
engineering disciplines. (Where are the costly Government Consumer Protection
people who are supposed to protect innocent members of the public by identifying
and policing questionable performance claims, misleading specifications, etc.?)
--- Caveat Emptor!

For example, claiming that copper wire is "directional", that
slow-moving electrons create distortion as they haphazardly carry the signal
along a wire, that cables store and release energy as signals propagate along
them, that a "final energy component" (improperly labeled as
"Joules") is the measure of the tonality of cables, ad nauseum, are
but a few of the non-entities used in advertisements to describe "cable
performance".

Another pet peeve of mine is the concept of a "special
configuration" included with a loudspeaker cable which is advertised as
being able to "terminate the cable" in a matter intended to deliver
more accurate tonality, better imaging, lower "noise", etc. The real
truth is that this "special configuration" contains nothing more than
a simple, inexpensive network intended to prevent poorly-designed amplifiers,
with a too-high slew-rate (obtained at the expense of instability caused by too
much inverse-feedback) from oscillating when connected to a loudspeaker through
a low-loss, low-impedance cable. When this "box" appears at the
loudspeaker-end of a cable, it seldom contains nothing more than a "Zobel
network", which is usually a "series resistor-capacitor" network,
connector in parallel with the wires of the cable. If it is at the amplifier-end
of the cable, it is probably either a "parallel resistor-inductor"
network, connected in series with the cable conductors (or a simple cylindrical
ferrite sleeve covering both conductors). But the proper place for such a
network, if it is needed to "insure amplifier stability and prevent
high-frequency oscillations", is within the amplifier - not along the
loudspeaker cable. Hmmm!

Having said all this, are there really any significant "audible"
differences between most cables that can be consistently identified by
experienced listeners? The answer is simple: very seldom! Those who claim
otherwise do not fully grasp the power of the old "Placebo-Effect" -
which is very alive and well among even the most well-intentioned listeners. The
placebo-effect renders "audible signatures" easy to detect and
describe - if the listener knows which cable is being heard. But, take away this
knowledge during blind or double-blind listening comparisons and the differences
either disappear completely or hover close to the level of random guessing.
Speaking as a competent professional engineer, designer and manufacturer,
nothing would please me and my company's staff more than being able to design a
cable which consistently yielded a positive score during blind listening
comparisons against other cables. But it only rarely happens - if we wish to be
honest!

Oh yes, we have heard of golden-eared audiophiles who claim to be able to
consistently identify "huge, audible differences" between cables. But
when these experts have visited our facility and were put to the test under
carefully-controlled conditions, they invariably failed to yield a score any
better than "chance". For example, when led to believe that three
popular cables were being compared, varying in size from a high-quality 12 AWG
ZIP-CORD to a "high-tech looking" cable with a diameter exceeding an
inch, the largest and sexiest looking cable always scored best - even though the
CABLES WERE NEVER CHANGED and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time.

Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always audibly
identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons are properly
controlled to ensure that the identity of the cable being heard is not known by
the listener. We have accomplished too many "true blind comparisons"
with listeners possessing the right credentials, including impeccable hearing
attributes, to know that "real, audible differences" seldom exist - if
the comparisons are properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as
system interactions with cables, etc.

Indeed, during these "comparisons" (without changing cables), some
listeners were able to describe in great detail the "big differences"
they thought they heard in bass, high-end detail, etc. (Of course, the
participants were never told the "NAUGHTY TRUTH", lest they become an
enemy for life!)

So why does a reputable company like DAL engage in the design and manufacture
of audiophile loudspeaker cables and interconnects? The answer is simple: Since
significant measurable differences do exist and because well-known and
understood transmission line theory defines optimum relationships between such
parameters as cable impedance and the impedance of the load (loudspeaker), the
capacitance of an interconnect and the input impedance of the following stage,
why not design cables that at least satisfy what theory has to teach? And, since
transmission line theory is universally applied, quite successfully, in the
design of cables intended for TV, microwave, telephone, and other critical
applications requiring peak performance, etc., why not use it in designing
cables intended for critical audiophile applications? Hmmm! To say, as some do,
that there are factors involved that competent engineers and scientists have yet
to identify is utter nonsense and a cover-up for what should be called
"pure snake oil and buzzard salve" - in short, pure "fraud".
If any cable manufacturer, writer, technician, etc. can identify such an audible
design parameter that cannot be measured using available lab equipment or be
described by known theory, I can guarantee a nomination for a "Nobel
Prize".

Anyway, I just had to share some of my favorite Hmmm's, regarding cable myths
and seemingly fraudulent claims, with audiophiles on the net who may lack the
technical expertise to separate fact from fiction with regard to cable
performance. I also welcome comments from those who may have other opinions or
who may know of something I might have missed or misunderstood regarding cable
design, theory or secret criteria used by competitors to achieve performance
that cannot be measured or identified by conventional means. Lets all try to get
to the bottom of this mess by open, informed and objective inquiry.

I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true
engineers, competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take a firm
stand regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the blatantly false claims
frequently found in cable advertising. If we fail to do so, reputable designers,
engineers, manufacturers, magazine editors and product reviewers may find their
reputation tarnished beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we
are supposed to serve.

Note #2

The many well-written responses to my recent "cable postings" have
convinced me that a significant number of readers have awakened to the mess that
exists with respect to questionable advertising claims being made for the
properties and performance of audiophile cables.

It has become increasingly obvious that many audiophiles are well aware that
most cable advertising is based upon gibberish intended to sell expensive,
"high-tech looking" cables that seldom perform as claimed. Indeed, it
is a provable fact that most cables, regardless of cost or appearance, are not
designed according to the teachings of credible engineering criteria, confirmed
by meaningful measurements and properly conducted listening evaluations.

Intrigued by the questionable technology underpinning the advertised claims
for patented cable designs, I contacted a friend who is both a patent attorney
and a competent E.E. As a result of our discussion, he secured copies of several
patents relevant to some of the most expensive, well-advertised and best-selling
cables presently available. Perusing these patents, I was shocked by much of
what I read. I was also dismayed that the U.S. Patent Office issued them, in
view of the flooby-dust and gobbledygook explanations given for how they were
supposed to work and perform.

Over the past 33 years, I have participated in numerous listening
comparisons, often in the presence of knowledgeable, well-intentioned
audiophiles claiming the ability to "always hear a difference between
cables". These listening sessions frequently took place within listening
rooms that most audiophiles would probably "kill for"! Initially,
before appropriate controls were introduced, results always favored the most
expensive cable with a high-tech appearance and the greatest "sex
appeal"!

However, when "blind", but non-intimidating, controls were
instituted, the differences originally identified could no longer be recognized
- and tabulated results revealed scores very close to those expected for
random-guessing. Yet, many self-proclaimed golden-ear audiophiles continue to
insist that they can always identify audible differences between cables and
abhor "blind evaluations" on the basis of perceived intimidation.

Reliable studies have conclusively proven that "audible
differences" perceived during poorly-controlled subjective listening
comparisons almost invariably vanish when proper "listening controls"
are instituted. Without proper "blind" controls, listening evaluations
almost never yield any relevant or reliable information regarding possible
differences between cables. (However, such controls must be designed to
effectively eliminate "listener stress" - claimed by some who do not
believe in the relevance of blind comparisons.)

In attempting to eliminate (or reduce) the effect of such perceived
intimidation, we have devised an interesting "deception technique",
wherein we pretend to change cables, letting listeners believe they know which
cable they are hearing, when in reality they are hearing the same cable
throughout the entire session. Interestingly, all participating listeners
invariably continue to identify differences they believe exist, even though they
have listened to the same cable throughout the evaluation.

An alternate version consists of actually changing cables but mixing up the
order, permitting listeners to believe they are listening to a particular cable
they have earlier identified as possessing certain audible differences - when
they are actually listening to a different cable. Again, their choice of
descriptive adjectives always tracks the identity of the cable they thought they
were listening to, but were not!

Of course, as I have reiterated many times, it is indeed possible to
sometimes identify barely perceptible differences between cables. These are
almost always traceable to cable/equipment interface problems, etc., and have
always proven to be measurable, quantifiable and explainable, using
well-understood theory and technical knowledge, along with adequate measurement
tools.

Lets now consider the relevance of the many impressive-looking, high-tech
appearing specs and graphs that regularly appear in expensive magazine
advertisements, used to compare presumably important "measurable"
differences between cables. These include graphs supposedly comparing a zip-cord
and one being promoted on the basis of its superior curve of Joules versus
frequency. But a Joule is defined as a unit of energy or work in the MKS system.
In electrical terms, a Joule is simply a "watt-second". With respect
to energy, it is the work done when "a force of one Newton produces a
displacement of one meter in the direction of the force". However, neither
definition seems very relevant for describing an audible or measurable property
of an audiophile cable.

A similarly impressive-looking graph, advertised as comparing the
"efficiency" of different cables, also begs examination. Here, the
advertisement defined efficiency as being related to "the phase between
voltages and currents along the cable". In the graph, zip-cord is depicted
as exhibiting an efficiency very close to zero at frequencies below 100 Hertz,
including the mains frequency of 60 Hz. But if zip-cord exhibited such a low
"efficiency" (according to normal use of the term), it certainly would
not be usable for supplying A.C. current from an outlet to lights, toasters,
fans, etc. (Indeed, in most household applications, zip-cord would likely
overheat and probably catch fire!) Hmmm!

A further, frequently encountered advertising claim for cables is the use of
"six nines" or 99.9999 percent pure copper (usually designated 6N
copper). Such ads usually imply that 6N copper is unique and is used only in the
world's finest and most expensive audio cables. Further references are often
made to an audible correlation between the use of 6N copper and sonic purity.
But, according to the Directors of the Engineering Departments of several of the
largest wire and cable manufacturers in the United States, virtually all of
today's copper wire is made of "six nines" copper. Every one of them
claimed it would be hard to find any cable, whether zip-cord, house wiring,
etc., that did not use it.

Some cable manufacturers even refer to their products as being made of
special "grain-oriented" copper or copper with "directional
properties", with respect to current/signal flow (gulp)! All large,
reputable wire and cable manufactures, with whom we have spoken, laugh (or cry)
at such assertions and claims. Indeed, if a wire exhibited directional
properties with respect to current flow, the directionality would
"rectify" audio signals (like a diode in series with a wire carrying
an A.C. current), creating unlistenable levels of second-order harmonic
distortion components (wow!).

Another means for selling more loudspeaker cables is that referred to as
"bi-wiring", requiring the use of two cables. However, bi-wiring does
not work in the simplistic fashion imagined by audiophiles lacking the
engineering credentials to analyze the potential system degradation in accuracy
that can result from using separate cables to connect the output of the
power-amp to the separate high and low-frequency input connectors at the
loudspeaker. In fact, such usage can induce many expensive high-slew rate
amplifiers to oscillate at frequencies above the limit of audibility. This
condition can arise because of the added (effectively doubled) capacitance
introduced by the "bass cable" not being "resistively-
terminated" above the bass crossover frequency and the
"mid-tweeter" cable not being resistively-terminated above the tweeter
range, where a typical tweeter's impedance nearly doubles within each octave
above the audio range.

As well, the issue of bi-amping should be addressed with regards to using
this application in an attempt to better the quality of sonic reproduction. A
straight-forward analysis reveals that this process may actually adversly affect
sound reproduction. This is especially true when the amps have different
properties, such as a tube-amp for the treble and a solid-state amp for the
bass, each possessing different gains, output impedances, etc. Amplifiers with
different gains, unless compensated to be equal, can audibly affect the
frequency-response, etc. of the loudspeaker.

I could go on and on, ad nauseum, reciting more nonsense, but it seems
prudent to preserve readers from further pain and anguish!

To see what a sampling of competent engineers had to say about typical cable
advertisements, I had three E.E. types (all holding Ph.D's from different major
U.S. universities) read several examples and provide me with their opinions.
Their comments and explanations matched my own, with all three being in full
agreement with the comments I expressed above. Some of their comments
incorporated expletives I prefer to not to repeat!

Many readers may question my motives for making the above comments and
observations. Well, I originally undertook the task of studying the properties
and design criteria for audio cables for three reasons: (1) I am the curious
type that cannot rest until I have studied the relevant facts concerning
controversial subjects, (2) Measurements of the electrical properties of a large
sampling of commercially available cables revealed relatively poor performance
properties, that did not correlate with their cost, advertised attributes and or
high-tech appearance, (3) I needed loudspeaker cables and interconnects with
performance as close to "perfect" as possible, so that I could rule
out any contributions from the loudspeaker cables and interconnects when making
measurements of our loudspeakers or performing critical evaluations with them
within our listening room.

But other reasons cut deeper: when advertised performance claims for products
are structured to convey integrity and a sense of being true in every respect,
yet in reality are either misleading or outright false, the basic covenant of
trust that should exist between manufacturers and consumers is breached. If
permitted to continue unabated and without appropriate redress, increasing
consumer distrust will eventually destroy the integrity of the audiophile
industry as a whole. Ultimately, I believe this has the potential to erode the
rewards available from a very neat hobby, especially for those in pursuit of
"true, documentable perfection" in the reproduction of music.

When profits and desired market share are given priority by any manufacturer
over their obligation to provide products with performance and features that
conform to advertised claims, I believe that consumers have a right to know and
be concerned. Too many innocent and uninformed consumers wrongly assume that
Government "protection agencies" are vigilantly pursuing
false/misleading advertising claims and products that do not perform as claimed.
Not so! Today, most government regulatory agencies effectively have their hands
tied behind their backs by bureaucrats representing "special interest
groups" whose only gauge of success is profit - and profit, alone! As such,
they are frequently impotent to take any meaningful action against companies
engaged in advertising, marketing and selling products whose performance does
not meet the rightful expectations of the purchaser.

Note #3

Thanks to all who responded to my original posting concerning audiophile
cables and their audible/measurable properties.

Since some of the responses seemed to convey a discordant position, perhaps a
more detailed exploration of the issues is justified. A good beginning might be
to examine the issues that separate those whose opinions are based mainly (or
entirely) on subjective grounds (perhaps from poorly controlled listening
evaluations) from those who favor an objective approach based upon correlating
relevant measurements with the findings of "blind",
"double-blind" or other types of properly-controlled listening
comparisons.

To begin, I would like to make clear that I do not believe that a set of
cable measurements, taken alone, can consistently and reliably predict how one
cable will sound when compared to another cable, without considering relevant
"system interface parameters". This is because the interaction between
the electrical properties of a cable and the input/output impedances (and other
properties) of typical audio equipment/components being connected by the cables
are an integral part of the overall performance equation. Thus, a full and
accurate set of measurements is only relevant if interpreted in the context of
such system interactions.

Given such interpretation, measurements can provide an important, if not
indispensable, guide as to the potential performance of a given cable within a
given system. To say otherwise is to acknowledge an incomplete grasp of
present-day measurement technology and the ability of credible engineering
knowledge/expertise to fully define and accurately assess all of the relevant
properties that affect the performance of cables within an audio system. Despite
the pontificating of some individuals to the contrary, well-known laws of
physics and principles of engineering are fully adequate to meet the challenge.
(A Nobel nomination awaits anyone who discovers and adequately identifies a
property that proves otherwise!) The notion that "physics lies",
expressed in a recent magazine editorial, is absolute hogwash!

Most "seemingly" unexplainable, yet truly audible differences
between cables, can be explained if critically examined with respect to
equipment interface considerations. For example, a well-designed, low-loss
loudspeaker cable (with a relatively-low characteristic-impedance of perhaps 6
to 8 Ohms) can cause many expensive, well-regarded power-amps (with a slew-rate
exceeding stability limits created by an improperly designed inverse-feedback
loop) to oscillate at frequencies well above the audio range. This is sometimes
audible as a low-level, high-frequency "crackling noise" (usually
emitted by the tweeter as it's voice-coil is being cooked). Such amplifier
instabilities may also alter the "sound" of the amplifier by creating
an "edgy" quality on musical transients or an exaggeration of
high-frequency notes, etc.. But the amplifier, in this case, is at fault - not
the loudspeaker cable.

Unfortunately, this is the reason many audiophiles avoid using
high-performance cables. Yet, a simple "Zobel" network (typically a
6.8 Ohm resistor in series with a 4.7 uF capacitor) in parallel with the
loudspeaker end of the cable can almost always cure the problem. (A multi-turn
coil of 20 AWG wire wound around a 6.8 Ohm, 1 watt resistor, connected in series
with the amplifier output terminals, will usually accomplish the same thing!)

However, while low-loss, low-impedance loudspeaker cables are technically the
ideal choice, from a purely academic point-of view, most loudspeaker cables are
quite short with respect to a wavelength within the audio spectrum, diminishing
the effects of "standing-waves" and "reflections" that would
normally be of concern at frequencies well above the audio spectrum. But
low-impedance low-loss loudspeaker cables, represent the technical and deserve
serious consideration where "ultimate accuracy" is the goal!

With respect to identifying the cause of audible differences between some
interconnect cables, excessive capacitance is usually the villain. This is true
because transistor output stages of pre-amps, CD players, etc. are frequently
"load-sensitive", especially with respect to excessive capacitance.
This is also true of some single-ended tube types. Thus, an interconnect cable
with a relatively high capacitance (exceeding 20-30 pF per foot) can often cause
some equipment to exhibit non-linear properties at higher frequencies and/or
higher output levels, resulting in audible levels of distortion. But again, the
cable is not always to blame, although no good engineering reasons exist for not
designing an interconnect cable with a suitably low capacitance, e.g., below
10-15 pF/ft. However, some of the most expensive interconnect cables, with a
high-tech appearance, exhibit measured capacitance exceeding 75 pF/ft. while
some of the least expensive ones clock-in at only 12-15 pF/ft. (We believed the
problem sufficiently important to justify the development of an interconnect
cable with a capacitance of only about 8-10 pF/ft.)

Thus, I sincerely hope that the above explanations help to explain why
measurements alone may not always fully explain the differences heard between
cables - without taking into consideration the interactions between cables and
the proclivities exhibited by the output stages of some amplifiers, etc..
However, accurate measurements, properly made and interpreted, can almost always
predict how a given cable will react within a given system, taking into account
all of the "interface" considerations that must be evaluated.
Therefore, measurements can be an invaluable design tool when properly
interpreted by a competent engineer seeking optimum performance from a cable or
a system.

So what about subjective listening comparisons for evaluating
"audible" differences between cables? Well, I will once again state my
belief that the "placebo effect is alive and well" and that listening
comparisons are virtually useless unless significant differences exist and/or
proper controls are employed! I base this belief on a considerable number of
carefully conducted and critically analyzed comparisons between different cables
over the past 20-plus years. Initially, I and my staff fully expected to observe
audible differences - which we did, in the absence of proper and sensible
controls. But in virtually every instance, when controls were instituted, the
differences thought to be easily heard and identified, either totally
disappeared or closely approached the level predicted by "chance".
Yes, we have frequently consulted psychologists and other experts familiar with
"audibility testing" in devising procedures and controls for our
comparison evaluations, etc. But the results we have obtained have always been
consistent: we have simply not been able to identify any audible artifacts that
could not be explained by a critical examination of the equipment, components,
etc., coupled with an analysis of their interactions --- period!

Note #4

The large number of recent postings regarding audiophile cables and
loudspeaker design is encouraging. Perhaps, it is indicative of a newfound level
of interest in the way cables work and perform. Several posts raised questions
and or proffered information that deserve comment. Unfortunately, my cramped
work schedule leaves little time for writing individual replies to everyone.
Therefore, I will try and lump related answers together and attempt to cover as
much important territory as time allows.

For those who asked how impulse response, step response, amplitude Vs.
frequency response and phase Vs. frequency response are related to one another,
lets consider the following. The impulse-response of any linear analog network,
including amps, loudspeakers, cables, etc., is important because it contains
information about virtually all other measurable and audible performance
properties. Beginning with a measurement of impulse-response, the
frequency-response, phase-response, cumulative-decay-spectra, step-response,
energy-time response, etc., may be rapidly and accurately determined by FFT
analysis, such as that provided by the now well-known, computer-based, MLSSA
measurement system. (We have three MLSSA systems running full-time for R&D
and production QC applications, in addition to spectrum analyzers, distortion
analyzers, vector-impedance analyzers, complex waveform generators, etc.)

Further, in answer to another question posed on the NET, variations in phase
Vs. frequency within a linear system are the "first derivative" of
variations in amplitude Vs. frequency. And, variations of amplitude in the
"time domain" produce variations of both amplitude and phase in the
"frequency domain". Indeed, virtually all measurable performance
attributes of any linear system, whether it be an amplifier, a loudspeaker, a
cable, etc., are related to each other in relatively simple ways that are easily
treatable by mathematics - an extremely powerful tool for those who understand
and know how to use and apply it.

Several posts seem intent on taking issue with what I said about low-loss,
low-impedance loudspeaker cables causing some poorly-designed power-amps (with a
slew-rate exceeding stability limits created by an improperly designed
inverse-feedback loop) to oscillate. One recent post said: "This is the
third time you have ascribed high slew-rate amplifiers to the problem of cable
interface. This is misleading. It's also the third time I have contradicted you
on this point, which is why I'm sending this reply directly via email this time
(as well as to the ng)".

But in my post on the subject, I never directly related "slew-rate"
to oscillation without the caveat: "... created by an improperly designed
inverse-feedback loop". Indeed, the following text (exactly as I posted it
on the NET) is the relevant paragraph that seems to bother this particular
contributor:

"Most "seemingly" unexplainable, yet truly audible differences
between cables, can be explained if critically examined with respect to
equipment interface considerations. For example, a well-designed, low-loss
loudspeaker cable (with a relatively-low characteristic-impedance of perhaps 6
to 8 Ohms) can cause many expensive, well-regarded power-amps (with a slew-rate
exceeding stability limits created by an improperly designed inverse-feedback
loop) to oscillate at frequencies well above the audio range. This is sometimes
audible as a low-level, high-frequency "crackling noise" (usually
emitted by the tweeter as it's voice-coil is being cooked). Such amplifier
instabilities may also alter the "sound" of the amplifier by creating
an "edgy" quality on musical transients or an exaggeration of
high-frequency notes, etc.. But the amplifier, in this case, is at fault - not
the loudspeaker cable."

From the above, I fail to grasp how this person interpreted my comments as
inferring that I believe amplifier stability is directly related to slew-rate -
alone! Far from it, for some of the best power-amps I have heard and/or tested
exhibited very high slew-rate performance - obtained by using proper
high-frequency transistors in a "minimalist circuit configuration with
relatively little inverse-feedback". I sincerely hope that the above
comments set the record straight and that I do, indeed, understand
network/circuit theory, transmission-line theory, amp design, slew-rate,
stability margin, inverse-feedback problems, etc.

One post on rahe recently noted that, "I've been following Stereophile's
analysis of time-coherence for a while now, and have noticed that almost none of
the speakers reviewed are time-coherent, including those which received
excellent ratings." Without attempting to justify "excellent
ratings" sometimes given by Stereophile for loudspeakers that do not
exhibit "time-coherent" performance (good impulse, step, waterfall and
energy-time responses), their reviews are most often an amalgam of two different
approaches for judging "accuracy": 1) subjectively perceived accuracy
(based upon listening) and, 2) objective accuracy (determined by assessing a
full-set of accurate measurements). The best reviews, in my opinion, are those
that compare the results of both and attempt to resolve and explain any lack of
correlation that might exist. Subjectively determined accuracy, taken alone, is
an unreliable means for establishing the acoustical merits of audiophile
components. This is because even the most honest attempt at determining accuracy
by listening, is subject to personal experience, preferences, whims, long and
short-term memory, program material, equipment interface problems, listening
room modes, etc. Also, one reviewer might consider a "warm, mellow
sound" to be most accurate while another might be attracted by a "more
detailed, analytical sound" and so forth. If a multi-member group listens
to a system and attempts to arrive at a consensus regarding its accuracy
relative to some "standard", the danger exists that the
strongest-willed member may, without consciously intending to do so,
inadvertently impose his or her choice on the other listeners.

Several individuals have inquired as to why we designed and sell our own
loudspeaker cables and interconnects. The answer is simple: we believe that most
audiophile cables are very over-priced, do not perform as advertised and do not
provide the technical properties required to insure the best possible system
performance (taking into consideration system interface problems). For example,
most interconnect cables exhibit a sufficiently high capacitance (typically in
excess of 30 pF/ft.) to cause non-linear distortion at high-frequencies when
used with some pre-amps and power-amps. The relatively inexpensive
top-of-the-line Radio Shack interconnects are a shinning example of an excellent
performing, low-capacitance cable (typically about 15 pF/ft.) that is very, very
affordable. Our own interconnect cable exhibits nearly half the capacitance but
is a bit more expensive - though very affordable for most audiophiles.

With respect to loudspeaker cables, we measured most of the best known and
most expensive audiophile brands and were shocked to find that little
correlation existed between selling price and measured/audible performance. If
you read back to some of my earlier postings on the subject, you will discover
that I covered the matter in a reasonably thorough manner. We will continue to
design and market our own cables to meet a consumer and professional demand for
cables offering credible performance, based upon solid engineering criteria and
accurate measurements of all relevant performance parameters - at very
affordable prices. While we do so, we also tell audiophiles and professional
users that, especially for relatively short lengths of cable, there appears to
be no consistently audible difference between most loudspeaker cables (including
high-quality #20 AWG Zip-cord). The same applies to most interconnect cables,
regardless of their cost. But, in my opinion, it costs no more to design and
manufacture cables that conform to the dictates of good engineering practice
than those cables whose properties and performance are very questionable. So,
why not do so - and give customers a break from all the flooby-dust,
buzzard-salve, snake-oil and hokum that surrounds the advertising of too many of
today's cables?